CIHM 
Microfiche 
Series 
(Monographs) 


ICIVIH 

Collection  de 
microfiches 
(monographies) 


Canadian  Inatituta  for  Himorical  MIcroraproductiona . '  Inatitut  Canadian  da  microraproductiont  hiatoriquaa 


1996 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes  /  Notes  technique  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best  original 
copy  available  (or  filming.  Features  of  this  copy  which 
may  be  bibliographicaily  unique,  which  may  alter  any  of 
the  images  in  the  reproduction,  or  which  may 
significantly  change  the  usual  method  of  filming  are 
checked  below. 


D 


Coloured  covers  / 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I     I     Covers  damaged  / 

' — '     Cruverture  endommag^ 

I     I     Covers  restored  and/or  laminated  / 

—  Couverture  restauree  et/ou  pelliculee 

I     I     Cover  title  missing  /  Le  litre  de  couverture  manque 

I     I     Coloured  maps  /  Cartes  g^raphlques  en  couleur 

rn     Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)  / 

Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

I     I     Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations  / 
' —      PlarKhes  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

I     I     Bound  with  other  material  / 

—  Reli^  avec  d'autres  documents 

I     I     Only  edition  available  / 
I — I     Seule  Edition  disponible 

I  I  Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin  /  La  reliure  serree  peut 
causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la  distorsion  le  long  de 
la  marge  int^rieure. 

I  I  Blank  leaves  added  during  restoratkms  may  appear 
' — '  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these  have 
been  omitted  from  filming  /  II  se  peut  que  ceitaines 
pages  blanches  ajout^s  lors  d'une  restauration 
apparaissent  dans  le  texte,  mais,  lorsque  cela  itait 
possible,  ces  pages  n'ont  pas  Hi  film^es. 


L'Institut  a  microfilme  le  meilleur  examplaire  qu'il  lui  a 
6te  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details  de  cet  exem- 
plaire  qui  sont  peut-Stre  uniques  du  point  de  vue  bibli- 
ographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier  une  image  reproduite, 
ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une  modifications  dans  la  meth- 
ode  normale  de  filmage  sont  indiqu^s  ci-dessous. 

I     I      Coloured  pages  /  Pages  de  couleur 

I     ]     Pages  damaged/ Pages  endommagSes 

I     I      Pages  restored  an*or  laminated  / 
' — '      Pages  restaurSes  et/ou  pellk:ul«es 

r^      Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed  / 
'-^     Pages  decolorees,  tachet^es  ou  piquees 

r~}     Pages  detached/ Pages  d«achies 

r^     Showthrough  /  Transparence 

r^     Quality  of  print  varies  / 

I — '      Quality  inhale  de  I'impression 

I     I      Includes  supplementary  material  / 
—      Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 

I  I  Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc..  have  been  relilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image  /  Les  pages 
totalement  ou  partiellement  obscurcies  par  un 
feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure,  etc.,  ont  iti  filmees 
a  nouveau  de  fa9on  k  obtenir  la  meilleure 
image  possible. 

I  I  Opposing  pages  with  varying  colouration  or 
' —  discolourations  are  filmed  twice  to  ensure  the 
best  possible  image  /  Les  pages  s'opposant 
ayant  des  colorations  variat>les  ou  des  dteol- 
orations  sont  filmees  dei'x  fois  afin  d'obtenir  la 
meilleur  image  possil-ie. 


0 


Addittonal  comments  / 
Commentaires  suppKmentaires: 


PagiiMtfon  Is  as  follom  i  p.  [175]-190. 


Thii  ittin  it  f  ilmad  at  ttw  rtduetion  ratio  chtcfcMl  bttow/ 

C«  document  tst  f  ilmi  au  taux  de  rMuction  iiMlique  ci-deuous. 


lOX 

14X 

18X 

22X 

MX 

»x 

1 

._ 

12X 

16X 

20X 

24X 

28  X 

32  X 

Th*  copy  tilmad  hara  has  baan  rapreducad  thanks 
10  tha  ganaroaity  of: 

National  Library  of  Canada 


L'anamplaira  film*  (ut  raproduil  9ries  i  la 
e*n4roaiM  da: 

Bibllothaqua  nationala  du  Canada 


Tha  imagat  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  bast  quality 
pouibia  eonaidaring  tha  condition  and  lagibility 
ot  tha  original  copy  and  in  kaaping  with  tha 
filming  eenuact  apacificatiena. 

Original  eopia*  in  printad  papar  covara  ara  (llmad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  snding  on 
tha  laat  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
lion,  or  tha  back  eovar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  copiaa  ara  filmad  baginning  on  tha 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  lllusiratad  impraa- 
sion.  and  anding  on  tha  last  paga  with  a  printad 
or  illuatratad  imprasaion. 


Tha  laat  racordad  frama  on  aach  microficha 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  -^  (moaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  symbol  V  (moaning  "END"  I. 
whichavar  applias. 

Mapa.  platas.  charts,  ate,  may  ba  filmad  at 
diffarant  raduetion  ratios.  Thosa  too  larga  to  ba 
antiraly  includad  in  ona  axposura  ara  filmad 
baginning  in  tha  uppar  laft  hand  cornar,  laft  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  framas  as 
raquirad.  Tha  following  diagrama  illustrata  tha 
mathed: 


Laa  imagas  suivsntas  ont  it*  raproduitas  avac  la 
plus  grand  soin.  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
da  U  nanaia  da  I'axamplaira  film*,  at  an 
eontormit*  avac  laa  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 

Laa  axamplairaa  originaux  dont  la  couvartura  tn 
papiar  aat  imprimta  sont  fllm*s  an  commancant 
par  la  pramiar  plat  at  an  tarminant  soil  par  Is 
darnMra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
d'Imprasslon  ou  d'illustrstion,  soit  par  la  sacond 
plat,  salon  la  caa.  Toua  laa  autraa  axamplairaa 
originaus  sont  film*s  sn  commancant  par  la 
pramiAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illuatration  at  an  tarminant  par 
la  darnitra  paga  qui  comporta  una  talla 
amprainta. 

Un  das  symbolaa  suivanta  spparaitra  sur  la 
darnitra  imaga  da  chaqua  microficha.  salon  la 
caa:  la  symbola  — »  signifia  "A  SUIVRE".  la 
aymbola  ▼  aignifia  "FIN". 

Us  cartaa.  planchas,  tablaaux.  ate.  pauvant  atra 
filmto  *  das  taux  da  reduction  diffirants. 
Lorsqua  la  documant  aat  trop  grand  pour  atra 
raproduit  an  un  saul  clich*.  il  aat  film*  *  partir 
da  I'angia  aup*riaur  gaucha.  da  gaucha  *  droita. 
at  da  haut  an  baa,  an  pranant  la  nombra 
d'imagas  nacaasaira.  Las  diagrammas  suivanis 
illuatrant  la  mathodo. 


1  2  3 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

MiCROcarv  iisoiution  tkt  cha>t 

(ANSI  ond  ISO  TEST  CHAliT  No.  2) 


10 


I.I 


■  Z5 
12.2 

1.8 


1:25    III  U     III  1.6 


1^  1^    11^ 


^  /1PPLIED  IN/MGE     Inc 

^S".  1653  East   Main  Street 

r,a  Rochealer.    Ntm   Yorti         1*609        USA 

i^B  (716)   482  -  0300  -  Phone 

^  (716)  2BB-5989  -Fox 


Reprinted  from  the  Transactions  of  the  Auemcan  Pisheries  Society 

for  June,  1919.     Vol.  XLVIII,  No.  3.  ,      > 

„i^ 

TERRITORIAL  WATERS  AND  A  SUGGESTED  EXTENSION 
OF  THE  THREE  MILE  UMIT. 

By  Prof.  E.  E.  Prince,  M.  A.,  LL.  D.,  D.  Sc. 
Dcminion  Commissioner  of  Fisheries,  Ottawa,  Canada, 

On  May  19,  1917,  a  Gennan  submarine  seized  the  Norwegian 
steamer  "Thorum"  about  four  miles  of!  the  coast  of  Norway,  and 
all  who  are  interested  in  fisheries  questions  regarded  this  occurrence 
with  special  attention.  It  is  generally  thought  that  a  three  mile 
limit  is  universally  carried  out,  but  in  this  case  Norway  protested 
that  her  territorial  waters  had  been  invaded,  and  international  law 
violated,  because  she  had  always  adhered  to  a  limit  of  four  miles. 
No  doubt  many  people  who  regard  themselves  as  well  informed 
on  the  question  of  territorial  rights  on  che  sea  coast,  learned  with 
stirprise  that  Norway  had,  for  over  seventy  years,  enforced  a 
limit  greater  than  three  miles,  and  in  various  national  and  munici- 
pal agreements  had  consistently  carried  this  out.  As  long  ago 
as  June  18,  1745,  Norway  had  enforced  a  four-mile  limit. 

MANY  CODNTKIES  CLAIH  UORE  THAN  THREE  MILES. 

But  Norway  is  not  the  only  counti-y  that  has  enforced  a  more 
extended  territorial  limit  of  three  miles,  although  her  cctirse  is 
one  of  the  few  that  has  been  recopnized  generally  by  other  maritime 
nations.  Spain,  as  long  ago  as  December  17,  1774,  also  claimed 
six  nautical  miles  along  her  coasts  and  the  coasts  of  her  colonies,  and 
re-asserted  this  in  several  royal  decrees,  in  1775,  1785  and  1867. 
In  1869  it  may  be  remembered  that  Spain  re-asserted  a  claim  to 
a  six-mile  limit  around  Cuba  and  her  West  Indian  poscessions. 
Spain's  last  decree,  dated  August  4,  1874,  aroused,  however, 
serious  objections  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States.  Italy  has  also  enforced  a  limit  of  four  or  five  miles ;  although 
in  some  special  conventions  with  Austria  she  adopted  a  three-mile 
limit,  but  it  is  doubtful  how  far  this  latter  limit  has  been  adopted. 
Indeed,  when  discussing  this  territorial  question  with  the  Western 
Powers  in  1891,  the  Italian  Government  refused  to  recognize 
a  three-mile  limit,  and  certainly  Genoa  has  never  idinquished 
her  claim  to  complete  territorial  rights  extending  over  the  waters 


'         176 


American  Fisheries  Society 


1  p  '^'f™"  ■^.''"-  ^'  '^  intercstinK  to  note  under  the  Treaty 
of  Pans  1,W,  ,t  ,s  specfi.d  that  Freneh  fishennen  shall  have  the 
hbcrty  o,  fishmK  ,n  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  on  condition  that  they 
do  not  eon,e  w:thm  a  limit  of  nine  geographical  miles  of  the  coast 
nor  nearer  Cat-e  Breton  Island  than  45  miles.  The  lar^e  claim  o 
Grea  Bntam  to  exclusive  authority  over  the  waters  all  arid 
her  shor.s.  and  extending.  :n  the  North  Sea  to  France  and  to 
Non^-ay,  was  cons.dcraMy  interfered  with  by  various  Royal  and 
Parhamentary  Concessions.  Indeed,  up  to  IS.M  the  fishemen 
of  Belpum  had  the  right  to  fish  within  three  miles  of  the  Br^sh 
shores  under  a  charter  of  Charles  II,  and  the  French  fishe™,en 
a  so  ela,med  pnv.legcs,  which  up  to  then,  the  Dutch  fishe™en 
had  solely  enjoyed.  These  concessions  were  of  so  uncerta™  a 
character  that  the  British  Government  admitted  until  ,S.5,  ha? 
he  foreign  fishermen  referred  to  might  continue  to  fish  within 
temtonal  hm.ts  ,f  they  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  English 

atThrHa      tr'"!"'''^™-    AsMLuisMariaDragostaed 
a    The  Hague  Tribunal  m  1910,  in  the  coastal  waters  a  century 

miles  ^nn     ';         "'"'  """'  ^"^  ^^  ™"°"^  "^"""^  "P  to  00 
mdes,  100  m,les,  or  a  two  days'  journey  from  the  shore,  and  the 

^LJ         n         """°''  '^"'^'^y  ^"'J  contradiction  in  the 

iX  H   ,T  1  ™'  """'"P'^^  '°  '"<"'''  '"  various  seas. 

Indeed,  the  pnncple  of  "land  kenning,"  i.  e.,  claiming  as  much 

TZ  'h  Tu  """"'f  ""'  *'^  ''"'^"^^  '^"'^  ^^'  v-b'«  from  a  sh  p 
at  sea,  had  been  adopted  before  the  time  of  Grotius. 

INTERNATIONAL  THREE-MILE  LIMIT  INVALID. 

It  is  an  error,  therefore,  to  claim,  as  has  been  very  generally 
claimed,  that  a  three-mile  limit  is  an  ancient  accTpfed  i^fe 
imiversally  recognized  and  admitted  down  to  our  own  time.' 
If  It  be  asserted  that  such  a  limit  is  a  canon  of  international  law 
we  are  dnven  to  ask,  "What  is  international  law?"  about  which 
so  much  has  been  said  and  written. 

INTERNATIONAL  LAW  IS  REALLY  INTERNATIONAL  MORALITY. 

It  is  true  that  quite  an  extensive  legal  literature  has  grown 
up  smee  the  t.me  of  Grotius  (1625),  and  other  less  known  jurists 
who  gave  definiteness  to  the  general  tendency  of  civilized  nation^ 


NATKJNAI.  UBIARV 

CANADA 

MmiOTHiCQUE  NATBJNAIE 


Prince. — Territorial  Wattrs 


177 


I 

i 


on  this  subject,  chiefly  in  the  fanvms  "lie  jure  IwUi  ct  iiacis. " 
Yet  even  j;reat  jurists  have  felt  that  intenialiunal  law  is  a  flimsy 
thint;,  and  one  of  the  Rreatcst  mwlem  writers  on  the  matter  found 
himself  compelled  to  speak  of  it  as  a  branch  of  jurispmileiice, 
which  is  the  creation  of  moralists,  merely  moulded  by  the  acinncn 
of  IcKal  authorities  and  the  wisdom  of  statesmen. 

It  was  so  well-known  a  writer  as  Professor  Sheldon  Amos 
who  admitted  that  international  law  was  very  immature, 
ambiKUfius,  and  indefinite,  and  was  lacking  in  legislative  authority. 
The  opinion  of  John  Austin,  an  eminent  authority  on  jurisprudence, 
is  generally  admitted  to  be  sound,  and  he  does  not  hesitate  to 
say  that  "international  laws  are  improperly  so  termed,"  the 
laws  bcin^  framed  and  emphasised  merelj'  by  the  opinion  of  an 
indeterminate  body  of  men.  As  the  three-mile  limit  derives  its 
authority  from  such  indefinite  moral  and  ethical  principles  and 
summaries  of  international  sentiment  and  oblij^ation,  its  founda- 
tion is  vague  and  unstable.  John  Austin  very  i)roperly  designates 
it  "positive  international  morality."  Law,  to  have  any  force 
or  meaning  as  Sir  Henry  Maine  stated,  im]jlies  not  only  an  author- 
ity to  pronounce  it  law  and  to  define  it,  but  a  tribunal  capable  of 
enforcing  it.  There  exists  no  international  tribunal  sufficiently 
powerfu'  to  bind  sovereign  States  by  its  decrees,  and  use  com- 
pulsion if  they  transgress  those  decrees 

During  the  great  war  some  interesting  questions  arose  as 
to  the  cargoes  held  in  seized  German  steamers  at  the  Antipodes, 
and  the  New  Zealand  Chamber  of  Commerce,  in  the  capital  city 
of  Wellington,  when  discussing  the  question  of  charging  certain 
costs  against  the  seized  ships  found  tlic  objection  raised  that  such 
could  not  be  done  under  international  law,  because  at  the  end  of 
the  %var  these  seized  steamers  must  be  handed  back  to  the  German 
owners.  The  President,  Mr.  C.  W.  Jones,  a  prominent  New 
Zealand  merchant,  thereupon  declared  to  his  colleagues  that 
"there  has  been  no  such  thing  as  international  law  since  the  great 
war  began."  International  law,  it  was  claimed,  can  be  violated 
with  impunity  and  amounts  to  little  more  than  international 
etiquette  or  morality. 

Important  maritime  powers  in  former  days  assumed  authority 
over  vast  oceans  and  seas,  and  had  even  Papal  sanction  for  these 
extensive  territorial  claims.    The  known  oceans  of  the  world  were 


178 


Ametican  Fisktrits  Soeitty 


largely  divided  amongst   the  leading  states  as  their  iidtional 
property.    Britain,  when  she  became  a  great  maritime  power,  and 
rival  of  Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  asserted  very  wide  rlaims  over 
the  seas.    The  House  of  Commons,  in  1660,  declared  that  foreign 
vessels  were  prohibited  from  fishing  within  eight  or  ten  miles  of 
British  coasts;  but  the  prohibition  was  generally  ignored.   During 
the  eighteenth  century  the  principle  of  ".-rmotuni  vis"  became 
pre-eminent,  owing  to  the  great  naval  wars,  and  waters  within 
cannon-shot  of  the  shore  became  regarded  as  territorial.   Bynker- 
shoek's  principle  "  terrae  dominum  finitttr  ubi  finitur  armorum  vis  " 
appealed  to  warring  nations,  so  that  a  3-mile  limit  became  regarded 
as  equivalent  to  armed  power,  or  force  of  arms,  i.  e.,  equivalent 
to  the  range  of  guns,  and  the  exclusive  right  of  fishery  within  such 
limit  became  an  implication;  but  it  is  doubtful  if  three  miles  ever 
was  the  real  limit  of  artillery  range  and  certainly  the  limit  is 
obsolete  in  modem  warfare;  even  for  civil  and  national  protective 
and  other  purposes.    A  three-mile  limit  has  always  been  regarded 
as  quite  insufficient.    When  Venice  was  an  independent  power, 
she  exercised  absolute  dominion  over  the  whole  of  the  Adriatic 
sea.    Every  ship  entering  that  sea  had  to  acknowledge  her 
authority,  ccisent  to  be  examined,  and  pay  the  tribute  enforced. 
The  Pope,  who  possessed  Ferrara,  about  50  miles  south  of  Venice, 
was  annoyed  that  his  ships  were  overhauled  and  their  cargoes 
taxed  by  Venice,  and  he  called  the  Venetian  Ambassador  to  Rome 
to  explain  the  position     That  officer  explained  that  Venice  had 
absolute  and  perpetual  dominion  over  the  Adnatic  sea  by  enact- 
ment of  the  "Donation  of  Constantine. "    The  Adriatic  Sea  is 
about  500  miles  long,  and  averages  more  than  100  miles  in  width. 
Although  the  excessive  and  obsolete  claims  over  the  "common 
ocean,"  to  use  M.  Drago's  words,  have  been  largely  relinquished, 
the  assertion  of  exclusive  property  over  large  tracts  of  water, 
has  not  been  abandoned  by  many  of  them.    It  is  an  interesting 
fact  that  the  very  first  definition  of  the  three-mile  limit  of 
coastal    jurisdiction   was    contained    in    the    Treaty   of    1818, 
between  the  United  States  and  Britain,  but  neither  of  the  nowers 
signing  that  Treaty  has  rigidly  carried  out  a  three-mi's  limit 
even  on  its  own  shores.    The  United  States  has  always  exer::ised 
the  rights  of  exclusive  property  over  Chesapeake  Bay,  Delaware 
Bay,  and  other  areas,  and  Britain  quite  recently  insisted  upon  her 


I 


[ 


1 


L 


Prince— rerritonitl  H'alrrs  170 

rights  in  the  Moray  Firth,  beyond  l"..e  distance  of  three  miles 
from  shore. 

TRRF.E  PREVALENT  ERRORS  REGARDING  TIIREE-lillE  LI.IIT. 

Pre!  ''ling  ideas  upon  the  question  of  territorial  waters  seem 
to  mc  iirgently  require  revision,  hence  I  venture  to  brinj:  the 
8ubject  before  the  Americ  n  Fisheries  Society  for  consideration. 
The  members  of  this  Society  are  interested  in  ever>-thinK  pertaining 
to  the  conservation  of  the  fisheries,  and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
so-called  three-mile  limit  is  insufficient  and  unsatisfactory  from  a 
fisheries'  point  of  view,  I  venture  to  hope  t.'e  Society  ma>'  place 
itself  on  record  as  favoring  a  satisfactory  .-eadjustment  of  the 
matter,  a.  d  that  the  leading  maritime  nations  may  adopt  a  limit 
better  fitted  to  conserve  the  just  rights  and  interests  of  all 
concerned. 

Space  will  not  permit  reference  to  the  "headlands  question" 
and  other  points,  and  I  shall  keep  the  fisheries  mainly  in  view. 

There  are  three  common  errors  in  the  minds  of  many  so-called 
experts  regarding  the  three-mile  limit. 

(1)  It  is  regarded  as  very  ancient  and  venerable,  and  as 
established  by  antiquity  and  usage  and  by  the  general  consent  of 
nations.     (2)  It  is  regarded  as  universally  applied  and  adopted. 
(3)  It  is  asserted  to  be  a  canon  of  international  law. 
None  of  these  assertions  are  true. 

Let  me  take  the  last  first.  If  it  be  claimed  that  inter,  ational 
law  has  laid  down  the  principle  that  no  territorial  sovereignity 
exists,  or  can  be  claimed,  beyond  the  three  mile  zone,  we  must 
ask,  I  repeat,  "What  is  international  law?"  It  is  true  that 
there  are  Conventions  and  Treaties  and  understanding-  between 
nations.  These  are  the  only  definite  materials  which  can  be 
regarded  as  having  any  force  or  binding  powf.  Apart  from  these, 
international  law  is  a  compoimd  of  vague  affiimations  and  claims 
with  little  possibility  of  enforcement,  and  liable  at  any  moment  to 
be  violated  or  to  bt  ignored  with  im  unity.  A  great  modem 
authority  said  that  international  law  is  "jus  inter  gentes" — con- 
sisting of  natural  and  conventional  elements,  ant  so  far  as  it  is 
a  law  of  nature,  it  is  of  uncertain  obligation,  while  even  the  positive 
elements  in  the  shape  of  treaties,  agreements,  precedents,  etc., 


180 


Amfrican  Fisktries  Society 


arc  nnly  rjlilitjatnry  in  n  f:ir  ;is  ihr  nations  conri'rni'il  ri'^;.iril  them 
as  hnvinc  ttinnil  forcv,  Intfmaliimal  law  is  indeed  derived  originally 
from  >;iniral  and  abstract  tlieory,  and  it  is  diflicult  to  see  how  it 
can  have  the  same  force  and  oljlinatinn  as  the  criminal  and  civil 
laws  of  nations, 

Germany,  when  she  ignored  her  solemn  treaties  and  violated 
the  requirements  of  international  morality,  showed  how  futile  arc 
the  claims  made  on  behalf  of  iiiteniational  law.  It  fails  when 
most  n«ded.  It  is  merely  a  ci  I  lection  of  requirements  in  which 
the  (pinions  of  an  indetemiii^'ite  b(<ly  of  n'en  are  crs'strdlized, 
and  these  opinions  may  or  ma\'  not  ^;overn  '  he  conrluet  of  those 
indeiundiiit  political  societies  which  we  call  nations.  If  the  three- 
I  lilc  limit  is  an  essential  part  of  international  law,  it  has  neither 
w-'iKht  nor  imixrativc  obligation  to  support  it.  A  ccjtuUry  like 
New  Zealand,  with  no  foreign  neighbors  near  at  hand,  and  not 
bound  by  treaties  or  formal  a^;reements  with  sister  countries,  is 
free  to  establish  any  territorial  limit  which  she  is  prepared  to 
enforce.  Indeed,  in  some  recommendation'.'  which  I  made  to  the 
New  Zealand  Government  five  years  ago,  I  recommendid  that 
owinK  to  her  isolated  situati(  n  she  could  be  justifiably  the  first  to 
announce  a  10-mile  or  12-mile  territorial  limit  for  the  benefit  of  her 
sea  fisheries.  The  principle  applies,  of  course,  to  all  countries, 
excci)t  in  so  far  as  they  are  bound  by  treaties  with  particular 
nations,  or  groups  of  nations. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  claim  that  the  three-mile  limit  is  universally 
recognized  or  adopted.  The  main  ground  for  this  opinion  is  based 
on  the  fact  that  some  of  the  most  important  nations  in  the  world 
in  their  treaties  and  conventions  with  one  another  have,  at  times, 
specified  three  miles  as  a  territorial  coastal  area.  Such  nations  as 
the  United  States.  Great  Britain,  and  France,  and  some  of  the 
nations  bordering  on  the  North  Sea.  have  done  so,  but  because,  in 
certain  instances,  two  or  more  nations  have  bound  themselves 
by  such  limitations,  there  is  no  reason  why  any  country  that 
desires  to  do  so,  and  is  free  to  do  so,  may  not  claim  more  than  three 
miles  as  its  territorial  boundary  waters.  The  examples  already 
given  of  maritime  people  like  the  Norwegians,  or  the  Swedes, 
who  have  asserted  their  authority  over  more  than  three  miles 
suffice.  That  Norway  has  not  hesitated  in  her  claim,  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  she  recently  promulgated  a  new  law 


I 
I 


h 
( 


Prime, — Trrriloriiil  H'lilirs 


tst 


I 


ipct'iully  ))n)hiV)itint;  fori'i>;Ti  trawliTs  fnmi  apiiriKiiliiii'^  williin 
four  mills  of  her  coast.  Tlu'  violation  of  this  law  rtinlirs  tlic 
ofTi'tiiliTs  liable  to  a  iR'nalty  of  from  one  ilir>usunil  to  live  tliousand 
knmirs,  and  tin.  coiiliscation  of  tlie  olTendiiin  vesscN.  The 
British  (idvennretit  (lin'ctly  called  the  alteiilion  of  trawlers  from 
British  iKirts  to  the  existence  of  this  law.  and  in  the  oiriiial  n  i  e 
from  the  Hoaril  (jf  Trade.  London,  dated  Noveiiilier,  I'.iiis.  .ind 
si^jned  hy  the  Assistant  Secretary.  Mr.  \\...ter  j.  Ilowcll.  and 
headed,  "Notice  to  owners  and  skipiiers  of  trawKrs  in  territorial 
waters,"  it  is  stated  thai  "The  Bo,ird  of  Trade  desires  to  call 
attei'tion  to  the  fact  that  a  new  law  '  s  recently  come  into  force 
in  Norway  inider  which  fishing;  wiin  a  trawl  is  forliiddcn  in 
Norwc^inn  l.Tritorial  waters.  '  *  Territuria!  waters  of  Norway 
are  four  Hii;;lish  miles,  not  three  miles. " 

Attempts  ha\'e  been  r  le  at  various  times  to  induce  Norway 
and  Sweden  to  reduce  this  coastal  limit,  and  when  these  two 
nations  separated  from  each  other  the  British  forei^'n  office 
urKcd  Nor\vay  to  join  in  the  North  Sea  Convention  ( f  ls,S'.'.  but 
she  rejected  the  proposal,  because  it  would  liave  Iwrnnd  her  to  a 
three-mile  limit.  It  is  inten'stiti;;  to  m  ;  that  Denmark  enforces 
a  three-mile  limit  in  her  western  wate  but  a  four-mile  limit  in 
the  Baltic  Sea. 

It  is  by  no  means  true,  moreover,  that  the  thrcc-mile  limit 
has  the  authority  of  antiquity  (jr  the  universal  consen  of  leadiiiK 
nations,  and  some  of  the  most  famous  jurists,  such  Martens, 
admitted  that  any  nation  mi),'ht  acquire  marine  domii  i  beyond 
a  three  mile  limit;  indeed  he  asserted  that  three  leaj.'ues,  not 
three  miles,  was  really  the  limit.  Nor  is  the  idea  correct  th:'.t  K\i".- 
ran),'c  in  old  limes  was  three  miles,  and  that  the  limit  was  based 
on  that.  Indeed,  the  earliest  authority  to  announce  the  theory 
was  the  Sicilian  Secretary  of  the  Italian  legation  at  Paris.  Oaliani, 
who  first  stated  that  a  distance  of  three  miles  was  equivalent  to 
the  range  of  Kims,  yet  that  two  leagues,  or  twice  that  distance, 
should  be  the  area  for  obscrvin;;  neutrality,  or  in  other  words 
should  be  the  limit  for  enforcing  territorial  rights.  Moreover 
there  was  uncertainty  as  to  the  ba.se  from  which  the  three  mile . 
might  be  measured.  Norway  and  Denmark  and  some  other 
countries  adopted  a  straight  line  drawn  from  point  to  point  along 
their  coast,  and  measured  the  three  miles  from  that.    An  ancient 


182 


American  Fisheries  Society 


authority  establishes  a  much  greater  distance  than  three  miles, 
and  the  limits  were  fixed  at  GO  miles,  or  100  miles,  or  two  days' 
journey  from  the  shore,  and  so  on,  and  it  was  not  until  the  Treaty 
of  1818  that  three  marine  miles  assumed  definiteness  as  a  limit  of 
coastal  jurisdiction. 

M.  Luis  M.  Drago,  in  his  important  addendum  to  the  Award 
of  The  Hague  Tribunal  on  the  North  Atlantic  Fisheries  (Sep- 
temper  7th,  1910),  says  "The  Treaty  of  18 IS  is  one  of  the  few  which 
mark  an  era  in  the  diplomacy  of  the  world.  As  :i  matter  of  fact 
it  is  the  very  first  which  commuted  the  rule  of  the  cannon-shot 
into  the  three  marine  miles  of  coastal  jurisdiction,"  and  Kluber 
specially  referred  to  the  Treaties  of  October  20th,  1818,  and 
August  2nd,  1S39,  as  fixing  a  distance  of  three  miles  from  low-water 
mark  for  coastal  jurisdiction,  but  it  must  be  added  it  fixes  the  limit 
only  for  the  nations  who  are  party  to  suc'.i  conventions. 

The  unratified  Treaty  of  1888,  between  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States,  specified  three  marine  miles  seaward  from  low 
water  mark.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  unless  the  nature 
of  the  mile  is  defined,  great  uncertainty  arises  when  three  miles  are 
mentioned  in  a  Convention  or  Treaty,  because  the  length  of  a 
mile  varies  in  different  countries  and  has  undergone  great  changes 
at  different  periods  of  time.  Before  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  an 
English  mile  was  5,000  feet,  but  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of  her 
reign,  it  was  defined  as  eight  furlongs,  or  1,760  yards  of  3  feet 
each.  The  English  nautical  or  marine  mile  is  2,025  yards;  but 
the  German  geographical  mile  is  equivalent  to  four  nautical 
miles,  i.  e.,  one-fifteenth  of  a  degree.  The  German  short  mile  is 
6,859  yards,  the  French  mile  4,263  yards,  the  Dutch  mile  8,240 
yards,  and  the  Spanish  mile  is  4,635  yards. 

There  is  no  uniformity  in  the  terms  used  to  define  territorial 
limits,  in  various  treaties.  Thus  in  the  North  Sea  Convention  of 
1882,  between  Great  Britain,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Belgium 
and  Holland,  three  geographical  miles  are  specified,  whereas  a 
marine  league,  or  three  marine  miles  is  the  distance  mentioned  in 
the  Treaty  (unratified)  of  1888,  between  the  United  States  and 
Britain.  Three  marine  miles  are  specified  in  an  early  Fisheries  Act 
in  Canada,  viz.,  the  New  Brunswick  Act,  passed  on  April  30th, 
1851,  by  the  Legislative  Council  and  Assembly  of  New  Brunswick 
(Act  14,  Victoria,  Cap  31). 


r 


Prince. — Territorial  Waters 


183 


• 
I 


NO  THREE-MILE  LIMIT  ON  INTERNATIONAL  BOUNDARY  WATERS, 
OREAT  LAKES,  ETC. 

The  Great  Lakes,  though  from  a  legal  ix)int  of  view  regarded  as 
"high  seas,"  and  so  defined  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  are  really  wholly  territorial,  being  Canadian  on  one  side 
of  the  boundary  line  and  American  on  the  other,  a  breadth  ranging 
from  5  to  200  miles.  The  fishermen  of  one  country  are  prohibited 
from  operating  in  the  waters  on  the  further  side  of  this  imaginary 
line  and  the  fishermen  of  nations  other  than  the  two  bordering 
on  the  lakes  are  absolutely  excluded  altogether.  They  are  in 
every  sense  extensive  territorial  waters  separating  two  great 
countries. 

In  the  Gulf  of  Georgia  and  Juan  de  Fuca  Straits,  Canada 
and  the  United  States,  by  the  Award  of  October  21,  1872,  each 
acquired  territorial  waters  on  either  side  of  the  boundary  line  ("the 
line  of  demarcation  between  the  territories,"  the  Treaty  of  1846 
expressef  it),  from  one  to  twenty  miles  from  shore,  while  by  the 
Award  of  October  20,  1903,  the  United  States  acquired  territorial 
wafers  on  the  Alaskan  boundary  extending  from  four  or  five  to 
thirty  miles  north  of  the  line*  extending  from  Cape  Muzon  to  Cape 
Chacon;  and  Canada  on  the  south  side  of  that  line  acquired 
territorial  waters  of  forty  miles  in  breadth. 


LARGE  TERRITORIAL  LIMITS  FOR  SPECIAL  FISHERIES. 

There  are  numerous  instances  where  a  special  industry  has 
required  limits  far  in  excess  of  those  generally  recognized  for 
ordinary  fishing  operations,  and  large  limits  have  been  adopted 
without  hesitation.  The  Russians,  for  example,  reserved  for  a 
long  time  the  White  Sea  for  sealing,  and  in  1911  established  a  12- 
mile  limit  in  that  sea  or  rather  in  Barents  Sea;  and  Great  Britain 
and  Norway,  assented  to  that  claim.  The  line  is  drawn  from  Cape 
Svtoai  to  Cape  Kanin.  Norway,  in  like  manner,  closed  Vanagar 
Fjord,  in  order  to  preserve  the  supply  of  whales.  Great  Britain, 
Sweden,  Norway,  Russia,  Germany  and  Holland  passed  con- 
current legislation  to  preserve  the  Jan  Mayen  Sealing  Industry  east 

•  The  Treaty  defines  the  line  as  "the  line  of  boundary  between  the 
territories." 


184 


American  Fisheries  Society 


of  Greenland    The  Behnng  Sea  Tribunal  in  1893.  established  a 

mrt  nf  nT  ^""""^-  ^  '™'"''  ==""'=  °^  1°  "-"<='  ■"  the  north 
part  of  BehnnK  Sea,  and  a  3()-mile  zone  around  Robbins  Islands 
were  determined  by  an  agreement  between  the  United  States 
Russia  and  Great  Britain.  Delaware  Bay,  which  is  20  miles  wide 
at  the  entrance  and  30  miles  across  inside,  and  70  miles  lone 
IS  recognized  as  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  while  Chesapeake  Bay,  which  is  12  miles  wide  at  the 
entrance  expands  mto  a  large  arm  of  the  sea,  270  miles  long  and 
It  IS  entirely  closed  to  all  foreign  fishermen.  Thus,  when  the 
fishery-  interests  of  a  nation  require  it,  the  so-called  three-mile 
limit  has  been  repeatedly  set  aside. 

i..n^'n  ^"'nr",  ""  '"°"^  ^""''"S  '"  ^^"^''^  that  the  waters 
mside  Queen  Chariotte  Islands,  on  the  Pacific  coast,  are  really 
territorial,  and  so  long  ago  as  1890  Canadian  patrol  vessels  warned 

W»Tk"  f  !r'^  ^^^'"''  "^''^''''^  '"  'hose  waters.Captain 
Walbran  of  the  D.  3.  S.  "Quadra"  reported  to  the  Department 
when  this  warning  had  been  issued  that  his  coming  had  been  made 
known  to  many  United  States'  vessels  that  had  been  fishing  there 
and  he  lound  only  one  operating,  which  left  at  once  for  Alaskari 
waters  after  being  reminded  of  the  warning,  and,  said  the  Captain 
not  another  vessel  appeared  in  those  waters  for  five  weeks  " 
dunng  v>hich  he  continued  his  patrol.  The  fishermen,  in  other 
words,  recognized  that  they  were  fishing  in  Canadian  waters,  and 
the  area  is  certainly  almost  entirely  enclosed  on  three  sides  by 
Dominion  territory.  The  waters  at  one  point  are  75  miles  wide 
but  the  mere  width  ,s  not  conclusive,  as  the  entrance  to  Long 
Island  Sound  is  10  miles,  and  to  Delaware  Bay  is  neariy  30  miles 

Tr'tl,  'n  '  t'"'^  """^'^  '""  "°"'^<=™  -d  °f  H-«e  St™i ts 
or  ather  Dixon  Entrance  is  territorial,  and  in  Juan  de  Fuea  Straits 
m  the  south,  the  waters  north  of  the  boundary  line  are  also  terri- 
tonal  and  It  is  difficult  to  see  hnw  any  waters  between  these  two 
boundary  lines  can  be  claimed  to  be  "high  seas. " 

VALIDITY  or  LARGER  LIMITS  THAN  THREE  MILES. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  larger  limits  which  have  been  referred 
to  are  special  cases,  which  are  exceptions  to  the  general  rrile. 
This  IS  not  so.  Quite  recently  on  the  Scottish  coast  a  Norwegian 
steam  fishmg  vessel,   the   "Niobe,"  was  seized  when  traw'ing 


Prince. — Territorial  Waters 


185 


! 


.* 


in  the  Moray  Firth.*  Captain  Mortonsen.  in  command  of 
her,  was  found  guilty  of  operating  in  waters  five  miles  from  the 
shore,  on  the  ground  that  the  Firth  had  been  set  aside  by  the 
Scottish  Fishery  Board  under  the  authority  of  the  British  Parlia- 
ment as  an  area  in  which  trawling  was  forbidden.  The  offender, 
when  found  guilty,  protested  that  five  miles  from  land  was  "high 
seas,"  but  the  Appeal  Court,  in  London,  dismissed  this  protest 
on  the  ground  that  the  British  Parliament  had  assumed  jurisdiction 
over  the  waters  in  question,  and  it  was  not  for  a  Law  Court  to 
decide  whether  it  had  gone  beyond  its  authority,  merely  because 
a  three-mile  limit  had  been  defined  in  the  North  Sea  Convention  in 
1S82,  and  Norway  was  a  party  to  it.  Doctor  Bassett  Moore, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  and  scholariy  authorities  on  International 
Law,  said  that  this  final  decision  was  in  accordance  with  United 
States'  policy,  for  the  Courts  follow  the  decision  of  those  Depart- 
ments of  the  Government  to  which  the  assertion  of  its  interests 
is  confined,  i.  e.,  legislative  and  executive. 

It  is  an  error,  therefore,  to  claim,  as  has  been  very  generally 
claimed,  that  a  three-mile  limit  is  universally  recognized  and 
admitted.  A  slight  examination  of  the  facts  shows  that  it  is  by 
no  means  universally  recognized.  Uruguay,  ten  or  twelve  years 
ago,  claimed  jurisdiction  five  miles  from  shore,  and  only  receded 
from  her  position  when  Great  Britain  strongly  protested;  but 
she  still  exercises  domination  over  one-half  of  the  river  La  Plata. 
The  other  half  belongs  to  the  Argentine  Republic.  The  river  is 
135  miles  wide  at  the  mouth  of  the  estuary,  and  as  much  as  50 
miles  wide  over  100  miles  from  the  open  sea. 

In  187fl  the  Chief  Justice  of  England  decided  that  a  German 
captain  had  been  illegally  convicted  of  having  caused  the  death 
of  a  number  of  British  subjects  in  a  collision  with  his  steamer, 
the  "Franconia,"  inside  the  three-mile  limit.  He  stated  that  the 
conviction  was  based  on  International  Law,  not  on  a  British 
Parliamentary  Statute.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  no  three-mile 
limit  had  been  authorized  by  statute  in  Britain  until  forty  years 
ago  (1878)  and  in  that  year  Parliament  in  London  passed  an  Act 

*  The  Moray  Firth,  148  square  miles  in  area,  had  been  elosetl  by  the 
Scottish  Fishery  Board,  but  foreign  trawlers  persisted  in  fishing  there, 
njamtaining  that  the  prohibition  did  not  affect  them,  as  a  large  portion  of 
the  Firth  is  outside  territorial  limits. 


186 


American  Fisheries  Society 


to  remove  the  uncertainty.  By  this  action  of  the  British  House  of 
Commons,  jurisdiction  was  declared  to  extend,  according  to 
International  Law,  to  three  miles  from  the  coast  hne  The 
Umted  States  had  taken  like  definite  action  long  before.  Indeed 
It  was  no  other  than  George  Washington  who  enforced  authority 
over  waters  extendmg  to  one  marine  league,  or  three  geographical 
mile.<,  from  the  coast  of  the  United  States,  and  he  added  that  this 
did  not  fix  the  distance  to  which  the  United  States  might  ulti- 
mately extend  its  authority. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  only  necessary  to  point  out  (1)  the  three- 
mile  limit  has  not   been  universally  adopted  or  recognized* 
(2;  Ancient  wnters  and  modem  writers  who  have  been  regarded 
as  authonties  have  specified  more  extended  limits.     (3)  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  though  they  have  both  specified  three 
miles  as  the  limit  in  various  Conventions  and  Treaties,  have  them- 
selves claimed  more,  when  occasion  required,  and  have  legally 
justified  their  claim.    In  Britain,  until  recently  the  three-mile 
limit  had  practically  no  legal  force  bect.use  it  had  no  statutory 
authorization.     (4)  Important  legal  institutions  and  Congresses 
have  favored  a  greater  limit  than  three  miles.     It  is  necessary 
only  to  refer  to  the  International  Law  Association  which  took 
action  at  its  annual  meeting  in  1895,  the  International  Fisheries 
Conference,    Bergen,     1898,    the    French    International    Law 
Institution,  and  other  important  bodies,  all  of  which  have  urged 
that  a  greater  limit  than  three  miles  should  be  adopted,  and  in 
many  cases  a  ten-mile  limit  was  ,:pecified.    (5)  For  the  object  of 
fishery  conservation  a  larger  limit  is  very  necessary.  The  spawning 
grounds  for  fish,  and  nurseries  for  the  young,  require  to  be  pro- 
tected, and  in  a  vast  number  of  instances  these  are  beyond  the 
three-mile  limits;  while  important  industries  such  as  the  whale 
madcerel,   halibut,   and  other  fislieries,   have  been  threatened 
with  total  extinction,  and  require  closed  areas  or  sanctuaries 
against  the  mtrusion  of  outsiders,  so  that  when  special  reserves 
are  established  they  can  be  effectively  protected  by  the  nation 
having  jurisdiction,  and  a  three-mile  limit  is  usuaUy  not  enough. 

„„»  1™  1""^  ^-  °''*«°  (?P-  "*•  P-  37)  candidly  admits  that  "there  does 
eS.,1^^?l*°  *"  ^^  P"'™,'  ™'^  °f  international  law,  which  may  be  "onsw! 
ered  final,  even  m  wEat  refers  to  the  marginal  belt  o^  muZ^tiZilll^^- 


Prince.— Territorial  Waters 


187 


The  great  salmon  fisheries  both  on  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
coasts  require  a  larger  limit  than  three  miles,  if  they  are  to  be 
safeguarded  in  the  future.  We  know  that  on  the  Pacific  coast 
the  King  or  Quinnat  salmon  do  not  wander  far  from  the  rivers 
in  which  they  spawn,  probably  twenty-five  miles  distance  is  the 
limit,  but  the  great  schools  of  sockeye  salmon  no  doubt  go  further 
out,  and  descend  into  deep  water  to  their  feeding  grounds.  To 
protect  these  fish  when  approaching  the  estuaries  of  the  most 
famous  sahnon  rivers,  a  larger  limit  than  three  miles  is  essential. 

There  has  always  been  the  danger  that  Oriental  nations  might 
find  it  worth  their  while  to  send  their  fishermen  across  to  the 
Pacific  shores  of  the  United  States  and  Canada,  and  by  the  use  of 
purse-seines,  and  other  destructive  implements,  within  five  or 
ten  miles  of  shore,  destroy  great  masses  of  fish  before  they  reach 
the  estuaries  or  inshore  waters,  just  as  the  French,  Portuguese,  and 
other  European  nations  found  it  worth  while  to  cross  the  Atlantic 
and  exploit  the  cod  and  other  fishing  banks  on  our  eastern  Atlantic 
shores.  The  danger  on  the  western  coast  is  not  imaginary,  for 
fishing  vessels  from  Asia  have  already  visited  American  inshore 
grounds  close  to  territorial  limits.  One  such  vessel,  the  Japanese 
halibut  schooner,  "Sunburst,"  was  wrecked  in  the  summer  of 
1908,  while  fishing  close  to  Victoria,  B.  C. 

It  is  claimed  that  larger  territorial  limits  would  ward  oflE 
many  of  the  dangers,  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  and 
would  ensure  that  sahnon  and  other  fish  within  ten  or  twelve 
miles  from  the  coast  would  be  free  from  the  risk  of  reckless 
destruction  by  foreign  fishermen.  In  the  interest  of  the  fisheries 
of  most  countries,  a  wider  territorial  jurisdiction  is  urgent,  and 
would  ultimately  be  beneficial  even  to  other  nations  more  distant 
who  would  gain  by  the  pler.titude  of  fish  that  would  ensue. 

In  recent  years  there  have  been  numerous  respesentatiors 
in  favor  of  a  larger  territorial  area,  and  in  1893  one  of  the  most 
prominent  Parliamentary  advocates  of  British  fisheries  protection 
and  preservation,  the  late  Lord  Tweedmouth,  strongly  advocated 
a  limit  of  six  miles  as  desirable  for  adoption  by  maritime  nations 
generally.  He  had  been  chairman  of  various  fishery  commissions 
in  Britain,  and  was  looked  upon  as  the  mouthpiece  of  fishing 
interests  in  the  British  House  of  Commons,  and  his  emphatic 
opinion  after  long  years  of  experience  was,  that  the  present  limits 


188 


American  Fisheries  Society 


of  three  miles  were  altogether  inadequate.  FoUowinK  the  lead  of 
this  eminent  man,  that  important  and  powerful  association  in 
Britain  called  "The  National  Sea  Fisheries  Protective  Association," 
meetinR  in  Fishmongers  Hall,  London,  on  January  Kith,  1,S04, 
passed  a  resolution  which  included  the  following: 

"That  in  view  of  the  difficulties  of  making  international 
fishery  regulations,  they  are  of  opinion  that  the  best  method  for 
effectively  governing  fishing  operations,  and,  at  the  same  time,  for 
securing,  so  far  as  it  may  be  found  possible,  the  proper  protection 
of  spawning  and  immature  fish,  would  be  to  throw  the  responsibility 
of  these  duties,  so  far  as  the  waters  immediately  adjacent  to  the 
various  countries  are  concerned,  on  those  various  countries:  that, 
for  the  effective  realization  of  this  object,  the  present  territorial 
limit  of  three  miles  is  insufficient,  and  that  for  fishery  purfmses 
alone  this  limit  should  be  extended— provided  such  extension  can 
be  effected  upon  an  international  basis  and  with  due  regard  to 
the  rights  and  interests  of  all  nations. "  It  may  also  be  noted 
that  Inspector  W.  E.  Archer,  one  of  the  leading  fishery  authorities 
in  Britain,  laid  great  stress  in  some  evidence  he  gave  before  the  Sea 
Fisheries  Commission  in  1907,  that  the  three-mile  limit  for  fishery 
purposes  was  practically  insignificant. 

Of  special  moment  is  the  fact  that  at  the  commencement  of  the 
great  war,  in  1914,  twenty-one  American  Republics,  including 
Argentina,  Chile,  Brazil,  Peru,  Uruguay,  etc.,  were  moved  to 
urge  co-operation  with  the  United  States  Government  to  extend 
the  territorial  marine  limits,  mainly  to  increase  coast-wise  trade 
between  North  and  South  America,  but  indirectly  for  the  benefit 
of  the  sea-fishing  industries  also.  Quite  a  large  and  representative 
body  of  men  from  these  various  republics  arranged  to  confer  with 
President  Wilson  upon  this  momentous  subject. 

It  has  been  widely  felt  that  six  mi'es  was  not  a  large  enough 
limit,  and  the  fishermen  of  Scotland  twenty-five  years  ago  urged 
upon  the  British  Government  that  the  territorial  limits  should  be 
extended  and  the  line  fishermen,  who  formed  the  majority, 
specified  a  thirteen-mile  limit  as  necessary,  and  demanded  that 
within  this  limit  no  trawling  should  be  permitted.  The  Govern- 
ment officials  in  London  replied  that  the  consent  of  foreign  nations 
concerned  would  be  required;  but  as  we  have  seen  this  opinion 
was  entirely  baseless,  as  proved  by  the  decision  of  the  High  Court 


I 

T 


Prince. — Territorial  Waters 


ISO 


I 


of  Appeal  of  England  in  the  "  Mortenscn  case. "  The  well  known 
Canadian  HerrinR  Commission,  ISNO.  which  pulilishcd  a  sjilcndid 
report  upon  all  phases  of  the  industry,  refer  on  p.  7!»,  to  the  |)roliibi- 
tion  of  trawling  in  the  three-mile  limit,  and  they  say;  "We 
consider  trawling,  esijecially  within  the  tcrritoriallimits,  to  \>c 
exceedingly  injurious  to  the  herring  fishery.  It  is  established  on 
undoubted  authority  in  Britain  and  Ireland  that  trawling  scares 
away  the  herring  from  the  fishing  grounds,  drives  them  awa\'  from 
the  spawning  grounds,  and  disturbs  and  destroys  the  spawn  when 
deposited.  The  salmon,  halibut,  lobster,  and  flatfish  fisheries 
generally,  have  been  seriously  injured,  and  in  many  cases 
destroyed,  by  the  operations  of  the  trawlers.  We,  therefore, 
consider  that  trawling  and  the  use  of  all  destructive  seines  and 
traps,  calculated  to  disturb  the  herring  in  any  way  and  to  destroy 
large  quantities  of  immature  fish  and  spawn  should  be  prohibited 
within  the  three-mile  limit,  and  that  efforts  should  be  made  by  the 
Government  to  effect  an  international  arrangement  whereby 
the  trawling  on  the  high  seas  should  be  regulated  and  restrained 
when  the  herring  schools  are  in  close  to  the  coasts  so  as  not  to 
drive  them  away  from  the  fishing  or  spawning  grounds,  or  disturb 
or  destroy  the  spawn  wh'  ■  deposited  on  banks  outside  the  terri- 
torial waters. "  From  a  strictly  scientific  point  of  view  the  grounds 
stated  by  this  Commission,  for  the  action  suggested,  are  not 
altogether  well-founded,  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is 
great  force  in  the  view  that  excessive  fishing  operations  within 
short  distances  of  the  shore  must  injure  all  fisheries. 

The  extension  of  the  territorial  limits  would  enable  better 
supervision  to  be  carried  out,  at  greater  distances  from  shore,  and 
in  1915,  the  Canadian  Government  authorized  by  Order  in  Council 
a  prohibition  of  trawling  operations  within  a  distance  as  great  as 
twelve  miles.  Owing  to  war  conditions,  enforcement  was  post- 
poned. There  is  no  reason,  however,  why  such  a  special  method 
of  fishing  as  trawling  only  should  be  curtailed  or  controlled  within 
that  distance,  but  that  all  methods  of  fishing  should  be  under  wise 
regulation  within  a  distance  much  greater  than  the  present 
territorial  limits  off  the  shores  referred  to. 

Lastly,  in  order  that  some  practical  results  may  be  possible, 
I  have,  as  urged  by  some  leading  members  of  the  American  Fish- 


19U 


American  Fisheries  Society 


erics  Society,  framed  the  following  resolution.*  which  I  would 
submit  to  the  Society  and  ask  for  their  valuable  support.  This 
draft  resolution  reads  as  follows: 

PKOPOSEO  RESOttJItON. 

"The  American  Fisheries  Society  places  itself  on  record  u 
being  in  full  agreement  with  L'Institut  de  Droit  International, 
Paris,  1894;  the  International  Law  Association,  London,  1896; 
The  International  Fisheries  Conference,  Bergen,  1898;  and  other 
important  represenUtive  bodies,  which  have  urged  the  extension 
of  the  territorial  limit  in  coastal  waters,  and  have  emphasized 
the  fact  that  the  three-mile  limit  populariy  regarded  as  inter- 
nationally valid  is  entirely  inadequate,  and  that  in  the  interest  of 
fishery  conservation  and  protection,  and  in  furtherance  of  inter- 
national amity,  approves  of  a  suggested  larger  territorial  limit 
extending  beyond  the  usually  accepted  three-mile  limit  on  the 
coasts  of  the  various  maritime  countries  of  the  world. " 

™.„i!,.?/  T°K  °'  ."»  Socif -./,  Dr.  Prince  was  requested  to  frame  tbis 
resolution  to  be  printed  in  connection  with  his  paper,  in  order  that  it  may 

im^S^Sf.'t."'"'!-*"??  ^°J^  ""*  '"^  mating.  Members  of  the  SocietV 
will  please  take  notice  that  this  resolution  will  come  up  for  action  at  the 
commmg  meeting  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  Oct.  8  to  10,  1919.-Edito«. 


